ArticleBMC gastroenterology2025
Clinical anastomosis leakage and determinant factors among patients who underwent intestinal anastomosis in two Ethiopian tertiary hospitals.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIntestinal anastomosis is a common surgical procedure, but anastomotic leaks remain significant postoperative complications, causing morbidity, prolonged hospital stays, and readmissions. This study aimed to identify the rate, determinant factors, and outcomes associated with anastomotic leakage for patients undergo gastrointestinal anastomoses in two major hospitals in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
methodA retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted. 206 patients who underwent bowel anastomosis between 2016 and 2019 GC. To assess determinant factors first bivariate analysis was done for all independent variables and for variables with p-value < 0.2 multiple logistic regression was performed to identify independent predictors of anastomotic leakage. Odds ratios were computed; and a p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant and Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test was run to ascertain the fitness of the model.
resultsThe clinical anastomotic leakage (AL) rate in this study was 8.3% (95%CI; 5.4-9.1). A total of 14 patients died in the study sites making the mortality rate was 6.8%. The presence of gangrenous bowel at the time of surgery was a strong independent predictor of AL (AOR 4.88; 95% CI: 1.62-14.69; p < 0.001). Intraoperative blood loss greater than 500 mL was also significantly associated with an increased risk of leakage (AOR 3.13; 95% CI: 1.07-9.17; p = 0.029). Moreover, patients who developed anastomotic leakage had a higher risk of mortality (AOR 5.495; 95% CI: 1.517-20.00; p = 0.004). AL was also associated with prolonged hospital stay beyond 20 days (AOR 5.49; 95% CI: 1.99-7.12; p = 0.000). 3.13; (1.07-9.17).
conclusionIn this study, anastomotic leakage was found to be higher than expected. Bowel viability and the amount of Blood loss was significant predictors of clinical anastomotic leakage. Additionally, the presence of anastomotic leakage was associated with increased mortality and prolonged hospitalization.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.